Conversation Analysis of Doctor and Patient

Conversation Analysis of Doctor and PatientConversation AnalysisOverviewTo conduct the discourse compendium, the research had to hit the books the petty recording to the discussion in detail and analyze it from different perspectives like therapeutic, legal, business, health, family, or social context. There ar different things in the communion of heap which researcher has study like end between the talk and sentences, short and long interruption, increase and decrease in the pitch of passel, interruptions in conversation and the exact rule books and phrases utilise by the mass in the conversation. The basic dissolve was to identify that how individuals fulfill their goals and how the sense of order is maintained (Maynard, 1997). The conversation which is being analyzed in this researcher paper is knowledgeablenessal talk between gear up and affected situation.MethodologyTranscriptionA transcription of the conversation is written below. At primary-class honours degree the researcher recorded a conversation either in audio or video. Secondly the researcher utilise the nomenclature, described by Jefferson, to recode the conversation(Woodruff, Szymanski, Grinter Aoki, 2009). The purpose of nomenclature was to explain the give voices that are expressed in the conversation and many other verbal features such as the intonation, timing, and other vocal characteristics. During the conversation analysis, the researcher had to listen to conversation repeatedly to identify certain vocal features. Sometimes the help of some other researcher was taken to identify whether the transcription apply is accurate or not.Dr Comen sit down, (.) Missiz Sampson,=Pt =YesDr Ah(0.3)Dr thhhh I vdont call in weve met before hv we(1.0)Pt Well Ive had this u-sore throat onn off, for weeks now.=Dr =Oo dear.Pt En Ive got a cough- writs- its- Ive been you know chokingyou known Imcoughing- Im getting no relief from=Dr Mmhm,Pt coughing its just taw- choking that (.) ( ) backof=Dr h h h h h h Pt =my( )Dr Do you bring any vphlegm up when you vcough(0.7)Pt Well- (0.2) e-yesterday I managed to be sickn I did youknow,? provided normally it-Dr But you vomited then,Pt Yes uh huhDr Mm.The conversation nomenclature has been explained in the table below. For example, the (.) explains the a complete but short pause in the conversation. The number written in the brackets would explain the duration of pause in the conversation. Wherever was possible the Para-verbal features to explain and interpret the mother tongue. Moreover, the motive and emotions expressed in conversation are not included in this explanation of conservation.(.) except noticeable pause(0.3) pause of 0.3 seconds, for example?word Detectable, obvious rise in pitch?word Detectable, obvious fall in pitch.words words words foursquare brackets across adjacent lines implies to individuals are speaking simultaneously.hh Inhalationhh Exhalationwo(h)rd Implies laughter while speaking the corres ponding wordhehehe Laughter that is separate from the speechwor- A sharp termination of the word while speakingword Implies the sound that precedes the colon has been elongated(words) Words in brackets are conjectures when the sound or orthoepy is unclear( ) Unclear talk. Each set of brackets map outs one syllable of unclear speechword==word Implies no pause between two consecutive speakersword Louder than usual speechWORD Appreciably louder than usual speech?word? Quieter than usual speechword wordSlower than usual speech((description)) Double brackets represent descriptions of some verbal behavior that is difficult to write phonetically, such as ((sobbing)) or ((clears throat))In the explanation of conversation and transcription formation sometimes the detailed pronunciation is also presented for example in the transcription dunno is prefer over dont know if found applicable. To capture the speech styles, the researcher has diverged from the constituted spelling of the words. But when the divergence is in the excess then reader would have struggled to follow the exchange of communication. However, while transcribing the conversation styles and other things like carnal movements, manners of the people, their gestures and the cheek scratching to hold the gaze are not included in it. These physical movements cannot be transcribed the vocal and para-vocal features. Moreover, the nuances of these physical movements cannot be presented well.InterpretationAt the third stage researcher had interpreted the conversation by the transcription made and by replaying the recording. As the first step of reading the intuitive interpretation of the action of every person are explained. Secondly the each response has been considered in more detail to uncover the mechanism and devices which has been used in the conversation to maintain the imageing of conversation and fulfill the goals behind conversation.the first step of this conversation analysis is to analyze the aim of doctor. Clinic of the doctor is the institution which is involved in this conversation analysis. Thus, this accompaniment conversation is example of institutional conversation as describe by Silverman (1997). The basic purpose of the person from the institution(doctor) is to analyze the situation in which patient finds himself at the same time avoiding saying any such word which could make his situation worse.Another immediate poster which comes from this conversation is that patient is the only and important person who holds the tuition and is very critical for doctor. This is proximal context of conversation. Researcher can establish this point that it creates a powerful relationship between doctor and patient because of limited to immediate context of interaction between them. This type of conversation is represented by the particular way of conversation management devices are used by both protagonists. By using different conversation methods like sequencing, adjacency pai rs along with preferred and dis-preferred responses, patient has made easy for the doctor to analyze the seriousness of his situation. later on doctor realizes the seriousness of situation then patients provides packages of study and limited amount of information to doctor when he moves towards the most delicate matter.Observing this conversation one can observe that from line 6 onwards conversation goes from normal successive social system to more turbulent one once the topic of conversation turns into more delicate one. More precisely, on line one the doctor greets the patient and after her sitting he tries to identify what is the matter by asking her whether he knows the patient and patient has ever visited him before. After a short pause the patient gives him desired response by telling that she keeps visiting him because of her sore throat. This precision is particularly important to note and could also be dismissed as irrelevant in this analysis if the adjacency pair had n ot been appeared in the further lines in which the patient has said that he has cough and choking too. Indeed, the telephoner is using her right of turn taking to tell nigh her delimitate to doctor. So in this conversation turn taking and adjacency pairs has been observed.Once the doctor has listened about the situation of patient he has not given him immediate response but has tried to avoid it and let the patient kept public lecture so that she could completely tell him about her condition. Here he just said Oo dear. In this the expansion of the conversation is observed. Oo or Oh are another common example of adjacency pair. For example with the Oh sound or uttering really they intend to expand and elongate the response to a interview. Oh is the expansion context is an property of desire to get more information in the opinion of Heritage (1984). Sometimes Oh is interpreted differently in other contexts. The response starting with Oh to first pair part indicates the reception of information. As explained in this example Are you going tonight and Oh, Im not sure as the offspring of previous remark the state of person has been changed. The solving with Oh implies. The doctor has tried to repair the conversation because he wants the patient to keep going with her condition that is why repairing of conversation is observed where doctor has just said Mmhm,. When patient gives short pause in the conversation the doctor asked about the cough and then a bit long pause is observed in the conversation. This is example of adjacency pair in which doctor is trying to reconfirm the previous statement of patient. After the short pause patient gives the answer to doctor and then doctor asked him whether she did vomit or not then there was prompt answer to the question yes here another type of adjacency pair was observed which is called preferred and un-prefrred actions. Sometimes it happens that first pair parts or questions are answered promptly but sometimes answer s are delayed because they are not the preferred actions about which question are asked. The questions answered promptly are preferred one with the delayed answers are regarded as the un-preferred. For example, when any invitation is accepted then it is prompt repose and considered are preferred action and declining the invitation is delayed response and un-preferred action. The un-preferred actions have delayed response because it considered that their answer would create problems in social relationships.A long and short pause on line 4, 6,11, 14 and 16 , a repair line 11 an expansion of conversation on line 8 are enough to build an argument that this information has made doctor able to analyze that condition of patient is very serious and he can also analyze the situation in which patient finds herself but still getting the previous information of patient is very difficult because of being delicate object as described by Silverman (1997).In this framework the last comment could be made about the patient statement when she says that she is normally sick. This is attempt of building an acceptable account of delicate matter which represents the feature of adjacency repair.Results and DiscussionThe philosophy of ethnomethodology was adopted in conversation analysis, proposed by Harold Lerner, an American sociologist, in his book Studies in Ethnomethodology (Lerner, 2004). kindly order is considered as illusory according to ethnomethodology. The social world is actually slapdash and random by appears to us in order and is predictable. Individuals in society consider social order as social construction in their minds. Individuals in the society try to uncover the patterns of advice which they receive even though they receive the suggestions randomly.The conversation analysis is not based not the specific utterance of word or sentence in the person, but it involves the whole discussion and conversation among the individuals. No individual can interpret in the sam e any conversation. In order to maintain the sense of order in conversation, the people assume that they can maintain the meaning of utterance of words of other persons (Sidnell, 2009).People in the conversation take the help of subtle and explicate mannerism, expressions and remarks to maintain the illusion that they can and have understood the meaning of the uttered words by the people in conversation. For this purpose, they can and might mimic the emotional expression of another person. Confusion expression is also evident when they see that there is the violation of their expression. To understand the methods and procedures implied by people to cultivate the sense of procedure ethnomethodological research is implied (Perakyla, 2008). Scholars can infringe upon social rules to conduct a breaching experiment to achieve their goal if they think that conversation is going the wrong way of the road.Research QuestionsConversation analysis underpins several assumptionsConversation is o rdered and systematic no randomness or unorganised conversation aspect was foundThere is no universal rule to underpin the structure of conversation, but it is the participants of conversation who cultivate the order, structure and context.Even the structure of conversation is cultivated by the participants still conversation patterns are repeated in many contexts and cultures.The basic role of the conversation analysis is to evaluate the skills, devices and methods used to generate order in conversation which guides the communication, goals and helps in understanding the other person.Tough sometimes while conversation people are not cognizant how to create the order but researcher can generate the order from the real conversations (Liddicoat, 2011).Complications and applications of conversation analysisSome scholars opine that sometimes during the conversation people do not consider the key issues like context and structure of conversation which impinge on discourse. The ideology of social order plays key role in the methods which individuals use to maintain the social order, fulfilling their goals. Conversation analysis must consider the pervasive but unobservable issues opined by the proponents of critical discourse analysis. During the analysis of conversation, the political orientation and hypothetic assumptions should be avoided opined by Schegloff (2007). These could create the biases in description and interpretation of conversations. A remark can be interpreted as the mean of dominance but can actually facilitate the conversation.Conversation analysis, however, has bee. Applied to examine the methods and devices individuals apply to maintain and perpetuate inequalities in power. Hutchby (2008), for instance, utilized conversation analysis to show how radio hosts maintain power over their callers. Hutchby showed that radio hosts use various terms or phrases, like So or And, to altercate the pertinence of an argument. Similarly, radio hosts often ascr ibe and challenge a position to the caller, summarizing a version of their argument they can readily dismiss. In addition, Hutchby demonstrates that radio hosts do not need to offer their own position, which simplifies their role. In this work, conversation analysis provides a unique insight into the attempts of individuals to maintain power, offering an empirical insight into the theoretical mechanisms that proponents of discourse analysis posit.ReferencesForrester, M. (2010).Doing qualitative research in psychology. Los Angeles i.e. Thousand Oaks, Calif. SAGE Publications.Gardner, R. (2012). Conversation Analysis and orientation to learning.Journal Of Applied Linguistics,5(3). inside10.1558/japl.v5i3.229Goodwin, C. (1990). Conversation Analysis.Annual Review Of Anthropology,19(1), 283-307. doi10.1146/annurev.anthro.19.1.283Grant, L. (2009). Book review PAUL TEN HAVE, Doing Conversation Analysis A Practical Guide. London SAGE, 2007, 246 pp.Discourse Studies,11(3), 377-379. doi10.11 77/14614456090110030603Have, P. (2007).Doing Conversation Analysis. London Sage Publications.Hutchby, I., Wooffitt, R. (2008).Conversation analysis. Cambridge Polity.Lerner, G. (2004).Conversation analysis. Amsterdam rump Benjamins Pub. Co.Liddicoat, A. (2011).An introduction to conversation analysis. London Continuum.Maynard, D. (1997). The News Delivery Sequence Bad News and Good News in Conversational Interaction.Research On Language Social Interaction,30(2), 93-130. doi10.1207/s15327973rlsi3002_1Perakyla, A. (2008).Conversation analysis and psychotherapy. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Schegloff, E. (2007).Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Sidnell, J. (2009).Conversation analysis. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Sidnell, J., Stivers, T. (2013).The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester, West Sussex, UK Wiley-Blackwell.Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and Interpretative Repertoires Conversation Analysis and Post-Stru cturalism in Dialogue.Discourse Society,9(3), 387-412. doi10.1177/0957926598009003005Woodruff, A., Szymanski, M., Grinter, R., Aoki, P. (2009). Practical Strategies for integration a Conversation Analyst in an Iterative Design Process.Palo Alto Research Center,3(1), 3-9. Retrieved from http//www2.parc.com/csl/projects/guidebooks/publications/dis02.pdf